Tensions are rising between the Student Senate and the Constitution Court after the ASUO’s judicial body rejected parts of the Senate’s rules changes last week and on Monday rejected a resolution supporting the preservation of McArthur Court.
The court rejected the Mac Court resolution because of a section that said “the ASUO requires a thorough explanation from the University Administration to students explaining why demolition is the only viable option for this facility, given previous statements of the ongoing viability of McArthur Court.” The three justices who participated in the decision determined the Senate has no authority “to dictate the actions of the University Administration.”
It is not clear what language the court would have preferred in the resolution or what action the Senate will take now that the resolution has been rejected.
The court ruled last week that parts of a new ethics policy and other changes to Senate rules passed last month were invalid because some provisions were too vague.
“Vagueness is unconstitutional,” Chief Justice Matt Greene said. The ASUO Constitution mandates that guidelines for senators to fulfill their duties be “established and published.” The court ruled several provisions of the new policy too vague for members to have a clear understanding of their duties.
Last year, Senate President Sara Hamilton was removed from office by the court after another senator filed a grievance accusing Hamilton of not fulfilling her duties as president. Hamilton did not send out meeting agendas 48 hours in advance as is stipulated in the ASUO’s rules. The court said there was no recourse but to remove her from office.
The new ethics policy outlined an internal system for censuring senators with the senate ombudsman as the final arbiter. The court deemed that unconstitutional because the court, not the Senate, has the final say in interpretations of the ASUO Constitution and all the rules under it. There is no higher body to appeal to beyond the court.
“I think the ruling stands for itself and I’d be happy to take a motion for clarification,” Greene said, denying further comment.
Another proposed change rejected by the court required senators to give the Senate president 60 hours notice before missing a meeting with exceptions made for “extenuating circumstances.”
The court found that rule to be in violation of the ASUO Constitution because it did not clearly define what is expected of senators.
“(T)his proposed rule would allow the Student Senate Presidents unbridled discretion to potentially make capricious and arbitrary classification of what is and what is not ‘extenuating circumstances,’” the justices wrote.
Senate President Athan Papailiou said the rule was intended to give a pass to members who are ill or have a family emergency while allowing the Senate president to know how many members would attend weekly meetings.
“I believe we’ll have to work through the language on that one to define extenuating circumstances,” Papailiou said.
Papailiou said the Senate Rules Committee would clarify the language and possibly provide incentives for senators to follow the rule. He did not know what a fair punishment for not giving enough notice before missing a meeting would be, so he would rather provide incentives to follow the rule, he said.
The court also ejected the code of ethics because of what justices considered vague language regarding extra benefits senators could receive that are “unusual to the position.” In considering such legislation, the Senate appeared to have been remembering charges of conflict of interest votes such as those brought against Sen. Nate Gulley last year.
Changes to Senate rules are supposed to be decided by Nov. 1 of each year. Senate Ombudsman Patrick Boye said he submitted the rules to the court by that time and hopes that with minor changes the rules can still go into effect this year.
“They made several rulings that I disagree with and don’t think there’s a constitutional basis for,” Boye said.
Boye sits on the rules committee with Sens. Kate Jones, Lee Warnecke, Papailiou and Neil Brown. Boye said the committee will make necessary changes and resubmit the changes to the court without filing an appeal to last week’s ruling.
At the end of last week Boye wrote to Chief Justice Greene asking him to clarify parts of the court’s ruling and requesting information regarding the timeline of the court’s actions in reviewing the rules changes. He said the court held the ruling for too long.
“I have a concern with why there’s an eight-day gap for the ruling to be public,” Boye said. The ruling said the case was decided on Nov. 11 but not published until Nov. 19.
Most of the provisions the court rejected should be easy to fix with the exception of the power struggle regarding charges against senators who are not fulfilling their duties.
“The con court, as most judicial bodies, doesn’t like to lose power,” Boye said. “We feel that a violation of ethics should be dealt with internally.”
Papailiou said the rules committee needs to clarify the procedure and “a clear separation of powers” is necessary.
The court has already warned that even if all of the rejected sections are changed as outlined in the ruling, it will not necessarily mean the rest are constitutional.
[email protected]